UK - "Extreme Porn" Law
mark
Hi,
I don't know if the UK Government's plans to criminalise possession of
what it terms extreme or violent porn have been discussed here? This law
would include: entirely faked images, images showing simulated acts,
images between consenting adults, and images taken of private acts that
are never intended for publication.
Personally I'm worried because, whilst there may be a case for a law on
images of actual abuse, this law seeks to criminalise images because some
people consider them offensive or harmful to view. This could include some
BDSM images (breathplay would be highly likely, along with any roleplay
simulating a dangerous act).
This law is being pushed for by groups such as Mediawatch, who are also
campaigning (and have a petition out) for this law to include a wide range
of porn, including R18 (so filming yourselves having sex for your own
private use would be a criminal offence!)
A counter petition to this law is on the Government's new website at:
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Violent-Porn/
So please consider signing and telling others about it. It must be signed
by 20 Feb! Sadly Mediawatch's petition has almost twice as many signatures
:(
(Better still, write to your MP - more details at
http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/ )
Any thoughts?
mark
Don SideB
wrote:
>Any thoughts?
You folks should never have given government the degree of power over
private choices it has in the first place. As Reagan warned,
'government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take
everything you have.'
You will never succeed in restoring a subset of rights, like the right
to S&M porn produced by consenting adults. You must instead seek to
restore the general concept of the supremacy of individual rights
over the collective "good."
You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
away, or even the right to self defense, nor did you stand up for
physicians when health care was nationalized, and you certainly don't
stand up for the right of successful people to keep what they earn, so
why would you expect the rest of society to stand up for the rights of
a sexual minority that looks, from the outside, to be scary?
I'm sure the UK has some equivalent of the Libertarian Party over
there, join up and work for freedom for everyone and when everyone is
free to make their own choices in every aspect of life that does not
impinge on the equal rights of others, this will no longer be a
problem.
You don't get to pick and choose your freedoms, you are either free,
and respect the equal freedom of others, or you aren't.
Good luck,
Don
Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.
poo
wrote:
And how much different is that in the USA, with team Bush and his
buddies?
While the VP has a lesbian daughter - its NONE of our business to ask
questions... like how the republicans are against gays, gays with
kids, sex in general. Some are pushing for laws in that a married
couple MUST have children within 3 years or it becomes void.
We have lost our rights and continue to lose our rights in the US of
A.
Sean
>
> You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
> away, or even the right to self defense, nor did you stand up for
> physicians when health care was nationalized, and you certainly don't
> stand up for the right of successful people to keep what they earn, so
> why would you expect the rest of society to stand up for the rights of
> a sexual minority that looks, from the outside, to be scary?
>
Don, this whole paragraphis a compendium of silly propaganda and I realy
don't know why you believe it.
To begin with, hand guns were made illegal with the overwhelming support
of the British people. In a society where even the police are, for the
most part, unarmed, there was absolutely no reason to carry a hand gun
or to own one. Nowadays, if you carry a handgun, you are either a
soldier, a policeman fully trained in the use of such weapons, and I do
mean fully, or a criminal.
After the passage of the law an amnesty was declared in which people
could hand in their weapons. Quite a few were handed in but the number
was absolutely miniscule compared to the overall size of the British
population. The British people aren't violent, scared of being shot in
a mall or so hate filled and desperate that they want to go out and
shoot people at random.
Second, physicians: Speak to almost any British physician today and he
will overwhelmingly support the National Health system. Physicians in
the UK are well off, but they don't get filthy rich. If a doctor wants
to set up a proctice in a town or village, he is free to do so. He, or
increasingly she, is paid according to the number of patients who
register at the practice, so good doctors get more patients and more
income while poor doctors loose patients and income. It's actually very
competitive. If the practice grows and more physicians and staff are
needed, then the practice income must be shared between them. Simple
economics, not government fiat.
There is no temptation to overprescribe or to order un-needed
procedures, such as happens in the US. The measure of the success of
the NHS is that Brits have a longer life expectancy than Americans and
pay half what Americans do for their health system. In fact Americans
pay more than anyone else in the developed world for their health and
have a shorter life expectancy than Europeans or Japanese.
Incidentally, if any accredited physician in the UK wants to set up as
an independant, outside the NHS, they are perfectly free to do so. You
aren't forced to play.
Third: wealth retention - UK taxes top out at 40% and that only on
income of over 33000 pounds, about $66,000.
Rate Dividend Income Savings Income Other Income Band
Starting rate 10% 10% 10% 0 - £2,150
Basic rate 10% 20% 22% £2,151 - £33,300
Higher rate 32.5% 40% 40% over £33,300
(above any personal allowance)
You'll notice that taxes at each rate are levied only on income above
the previous rate, which means that nobody actually pays the full 40%.
Well, mainly 39% for millionaires, but no smart millionair with a good
accountant pays anything like that amount.
Inheritance tax can be avoided entirely with a little planning.
So, now I've given you, at considerable expense in time, some
information which may improve your understanding of how things really
are inthe UK.
By the way, the law in question is aimed solely at child pornographers,
and if you want to defend their "freedom", then you go beyond reasonable
and become fanatic.
And if you want to discuss restriction of freedom, check out the real
provisions of the RICO act and the Patriot Act.
>
> You don't get to pick and choose your freedoms, you are either free,
> and respect the equal freedom of others, or you aren't.
>
Free to do what? Without some restriction on freedom, anarchy rules.
That restriction on freedom is called Law.
Sean
Don SideB
>>You don't get to pick and choose your freedoms, you are either free,
>>and respect the equal freedom of others, or you aren't.
>
>And how much different is that in the USA, with team Bush and his
>buddies?
>
Where did I say it was different? We have just thrown away different
freedoms here than in the UK.
>While the VP has a lesbian daughter - its NONE of our business to ask
>questions... like how the republicans are against gays, gays with
>kids, sex in general. Some are pushing for laws in that a married
>couple MUST have children within 3 years or it becomes void.
>
Actually, that proposal is by a PRO gay marriage group. It is a clever
use of irony in the political process.
>We have lost our rights and continue to lose our rights in the US of
>A.
Which is why I keep warning people that if they want to preserve their
rights, they need to respect and preserve the rights of others as
well, even those rights of others they disagree with.
Don SideB
wrote:
>Don, this whole paragraphis a compendium of silly propaganda and I realy
>don't know why you believe it.
>
>To begin with, hand guns were made illegal with the overwhelming support
>of the British people.
That is so terribly sad.
Sean
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:50:58 -0500, Sean <Captainv...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Don, this whole paragraphis a compendium of silly propaganda and I realy
>>don't know why you believe it.
>>
>>To begin with, hand guns were made illegal with the overwhelming support
>>of the British people.
>
>
> That is so terribly sad.
>
> Don
You consider democracy in action to be sad?
Sean
Stephen Harris
> You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
Ah goodie. Don's in full political rant mode again. Into the kill file
for 28 days you go.
--
rgds, Stephen "Pleasure, little treasure"
An Englishman in New York, and loving slave to his Mistress, Tori.
BDSM thoughts, writings, poems and stuff: http://bdsm.spuddy.org/
Newsgroup charter, FAQs etc at http://bdsm.spuddy.org/newsgroups/
Ruth Lawrence
"Stephen Harris" <bd...@spuddy.org> wrote in message
news:ju02re...@spuddy.org...
> Don SideB <dons...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
>
> Ah goodie. Don's in full political rant mode again. Into the kill file
> for 28 days you go.
You let him out?
Ruth
Don SideB
wrote:
I find it very sad when people willingly surrender their rights for
the sake of security. It is worse to give rights away than to have
them taken.
Golden California Girls
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 19:04:37 -0500, Sean <Captainv...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Don SideB wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2007 10:50:58 -0500, Sean <Captainv...@yahoo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Don, this whole paragraphis a compendium of silly propaganda and I realy
>>>> don't know why you believe it.
>>>>
>>>> To begin with, hand guns were made illegal with the overwhelming support
>>>> of the British people.
>>>
>>> That is so terribly sad.
>>>
>>> Don
>> You consider democracy in action to be sad?
>
> I find it very sad when people willingly surrender their rights for
> the sake of security. It is worse to give rights away than to have
> them taken.
Then you must be against all government, even the most basic like a stop sign.
After all democratic or republic government only exists because the populace has
surrendered rights.
I have to call you on this Don, because you contradict yourself. It isn't any
right you feel this way about but some specific set of rights you feel strongly
about, which may or may not be important to any other person on the planet.
Don SideB
<gldnc...@aol.com.mil> wrote:
>> I find it very sad when people willingly surrender their rights for
>> the sake of security. It is worse to give rights away than to have
>> them taken.
>
>Then you must be against all government, even the most basic like a stop sign.
>After all democratic or republic government only exists because the populace has
>surrendered rights.
No, not all government. Government exists to secure our rights and to
provide certain infrastructure we share. Some rules are necessary for
sharing that infrastructure. However, my peaceably carrying a handgun
violates no one's rights.
>
>I have to call you on this Don, because you contradict yourself. It isn't any
>right you feel this way about but some specific set of rights you feel strongly
>about, which may or may not be important to any other person on the planet.
I have no right to violate the rights of another. There just isn't
any right to live in a world where I don't have the means to defend
myself against thugs or government thugs operating outside the
parameters of the Constitution I have agreed to live under. If I use a
handgun or other weapon, or sheer physical strength, to initiate force
on another, government has the power to constrain me. But so long as I
do not initiate force, or threaten to do so, then government has no
just power to deny me the means for my own defense.
Actually, I am so consistent as to be predictable.
Nick
the majority of the people. Weapons possession is not considered a
basic right in the UK.
In the US weapons ownership is in the same league as freedom of
speech, freedom of religion, right against self-incrimination, and
other rights established to limit government. There is a tool in
place to remove that right, or any other from the list of items
government is limited. Amend the Constitution to rephrase the 2nd.
Let the will of the people speak in the form it was intended. Don't
do it back some back door trickery.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 20:32:58 -0800, Golden California Girls
Golden California Girls
A stop sign or a speed limit is security Don. It isn't a common use thing like
having a standard for a pound weight or the length of a second. It is a
security issue of the body issue. Least ways that is how the debate went
enacting those laws.
>Some rules are necessary
Your tongue seems to be forked and words appear to be coming out of both sides
of your mouth Don.
The problem Don is you don't realize the very things your rail against are the
very same things you rail for. You have a lot of circular logic going on. Once
you can get rid of that ...
darkn...@yahoo.com
> Don SideB <donsi...@aol.com> wrote:
> > You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
>
> Ah goodie. Don's in full political rant mode again. Into the kill file
> for 28 days you go.
>
I almost burst out laughing when I read it!
I shall feign to avoid my usual response- -why feed the habit?
darkn...@yahoo.com
Sean
1. facts will prove to be useless in this conversation. Don knows
what he knows, he isn't interested in information which contradicts
his worldview.
Beware long, fact filled answers. He'll tell you he doesn't have time
to read them ;-). As he replies to 50 other posts ;-).
2. UK tax is a little more complex than this in that we also pay 10%
National Insurance (up to a threshold (£645/wk according to a quick
google) *and* we pay an additional 1% on all income outside the basic
NI allowance *without limit*.
Employers pay 11 (or 12%?) NI on our wages without limit.
So your marginal tax rate (earned income) is actually 41%. Better to
be a 'Hooray Henry' with a trust fund, and no employment earnings, and
not pay National Insurance ;-).
This was one of Gordon Brown's sleight of hands. It turns out the
public doesn't mind NI tax increases, which are linked in their mind
to the NHS (although actually the Chancellor had to have special
enabling legislation to so use them, the framework legislation says NI
is only for the Dole(?) and for Pensions) whereas they will resist a
change in the rate of taxation.
The other trick the Iron Chancellor is pursuing (which is happening in
the US via a creature called the AMT) is that real incomes rise faster
than the tax brackets (which are indexed to inflation). So, over
time, more and more taxpayers drift into the higher rates.
Like most tax systems, the UK system could do with a good
simplification-- there's so many tricks and quirks built in, the
legislation is unwieldy.
darkn...@yahoo.com
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:54:05 GMT, mark <emarkie...@nospam.yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
>
> snip
>
> > You didn't put up a fight when the rights of gun owners were taken
> > away, or even the right to self defense, nor did you stand up for
> > physicians when health care was nationalized, and you certainly don't
> > stand up for the right of successful people to keep what they earn, so
> > why would you expect the rest of society to stand up for the rights of
> > a sexual minority that looks, from the outside, to be scary?
>
> >snip
>
> Don, this whole paragraphis a compendium of silly propaganda and I realy
> don't know why you believe it.
Post modernism. Ironically American conservatives have become the
best devotees of the post modern thoughts of French philosophers.
The post modern point was that everything is ideology. ie there is no
'truth' only our interpretation of facts as we see them. Everything
is context.
There is no global warming. Only scientists pursuing the enhancement
of the scientific profession.
Ideology tells you what to think about the Middle East. About
taxation. About law and order. About gun control. About Great
Britain, even if you have never been there.
Facts or analysis would only confuse the issue.
Once you understand that mental framework (I had it well sharpened by
debating the Left in Uni) then you understand the pointlessness of
argument.
Ruth Lawrence
<darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote
<post modernism>
> Once you understand that mental framework (I had it well sharpened by
> debating the Left in Uni) then you understand the pointlessness of
> argument.
I'm here to say that there is a Left which has , and has had, no truck with
postmodernism and its ilk.
It isn't strong in university humanities departments, it's true.
Ruth, a life long progressive (and materialist of sorts)
darkn...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <darknes...@yahoo.com> wrote
When I discovered as an old fashioned liberal that that meant I was a
'typical representative of the white male patriarchy' and that I
didn't understand 'the Other' I decided that I was probably out of my
depth.
One thing the Right has really taken on board from Foucault, Derrida
etc. is the use of language to dominate the argument. I am probably a
fan of George Orwell above all 20th century writers in particular that
brilliant essay on the political abuse of language.
French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of
science').
However the fact that it has cut such a swathe suggests to me the
world was ready for it-- perhaps the old Left-Right dialectic left a
vaccuum to be filled.
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity
WB Yeats
Don SideB
>Post modernism. Ironically American conservatives have become the
>best devotees of the post modern thoughts of French philosophers.
>
>The post modern point was that everything is ideology. ie there is no
>'truth' only our interpretation of facts as we see them. Everything
>is context.
You're projecting again.
You and Sean are also following a familiar pattern, focusing on
peripherals to the exclusion of the central point being made.
That is that you don't get to pick and choose which liberties to
preserve. You either work for all liberties or those precious to you
will be lost.
We are a sexual minority and most people are very uncomfortable with
what we do.
Those who believe in the right to bear arms in the UK are similarly a
minority who make the majority uncomfortable. You cannot demonstrate
any harm done by firearms in the hands of law abiding people, but you
are uncomfortable with them around. If your discomfort with armed
citizens is reason enough to ban firearms, how can you argue that the
discomfort of others with WIITWD is not reason to make us criminals?
When rights can be trampled simply because they make you
uncomfortable, no rights are safe. People's choices should not be
limited so long as they do not infringe on the rights of others.
That is a simple point, can you argue with it without drifting off
into distractions?
Don SideB
>French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
>debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
>no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of
>science').
You're projecting again. It is your side that is making a religion of
Anthropogenic Global Warming. If you take the time to read the leaked
Working Group 1 Technical Summary of the IPCC (available at
Junkscience.com and other places) and not the bureaucrat's Summary for
Policy Makers, you will see that the science is confirming the things
I have been saying.
And I have never said there was no Global Warming, I have said that
mans contribution to it is marginal on an exiting trend and that third
world nations contribute as much or more than developed nations. I
have also said Gore's 20 ft sea level rise would not happen, and the
IPCC confirms that, giving a worst case fro 2100 of 17 inches (not 23
as in the summary)
mark
> You folks should never have given government the degree of power over
> private choices it has in the first place. As Reagan warned,
> 'government big enough to give you all you want is big enough to take
> everything you have.'
>
> You will never succeed in restoring a subset of rights, like the right
> to S&M porn produced by consenting adults. You must instead seek to
> restore the general concept of the supremacy of individual rights
> over the collective "good."
I agree - although I disagree that one must support all rights (e.g.,
should people have the right to own nuclear weapons?) (also I'm not sure
how national health care comes into this..?) I don't believe we have lost
the right to self-defence either?
Certainly though I agree this should be looked at in the wider context of
rights (such as not having censorship/obscenity laws, having freedom of
expression, right to a private life, right to sexuality) rather than
making this solely an issue of "violent pornography". But at the same
time, it's probably not best to polarise the issue, otherwise you lose
potential support from people who might, say, believe in gun control.
In some cases it's been that we've never had the right (well, unless you
go back to before any Goverments existed) rather than having the right
taken away, such as freedom of speech (although this now exists under the
Human Rights Act).
Speaking for myself, I do generally support a wide range of individual
rights (and I would be against this law even if I wasn't into BDSM).
mark
Ruth Lawrence
<darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171801702.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 18, 9:25 am, "Ruth Lawrence" <curlygr...@optusnet.com.au>
> wrote:
>> <darknes...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>
>> <post modernism>
>>
>> > Once you understand that mental framework (I had it well sharpened by
>> > debating the Left in Uni) then you understand the pointlessness of
>> > argument.
>>
>> I'm here to say that there is a Left which has , and has had, no truck
>> with
>> postmodernism and its ilk.
>>
>> It isn't strong in university humanities departments, it's true.
>>
>> Ruth, a life long progressive (and materialist of sorts)
>
> When I discovered as an old fashioned liberal that that meant I was a
> 'typical representative of the white male patriarchy' and that I
> didn't understand 'the Other' I decided that I was probably out of my
> depth.
There are people who will lay that trip on anyone who sits still for it, and
then there are people who lay it on those who are unwilling to accept how
advantaged they may be by accidents of birth.
> One thing the Right has really taken on board from Foucault, Derrida
> etc. is the use of language to dominate the argument. I am probably a
> fan of George Orwell above all 20th century writers in particular that
> brilliant essay on the political abuse of language.
Well, yes.
Me, I am clear that I do not believe bullshit. This seems to be a very
powerful tool that propagates nicely :-)
> French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
> debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
> no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of
> science').
Lots of people do not and have never believed that, including sociologists.
It's derived from psych 'theory' long demonstrated as wrong, after all.
> However the fact that it has cut such a swathe suggests to me the
> world was ready for it-- perhaps the old Left-Right dialectic left a
> vaccuum to be filled.
People will adopt fashionable ideas, especially if it gains them good
grades, helps their career or gets them laid.
This 'readiness' is always available in my view.
Ruth
darkn...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> <darknes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171801702.7...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 18, 9:25 am, "Ruth Lawrence" <curlygr...@optusnet.com.au>
> > wrote:
> >> <darknes...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> >> <post modernism>
>
> >> > Once you understand that mental framework (I had it well sharpened by
> >> > debating the Left in Uni) then you understand the pointlessness of
> >> > argument.
>
> >> I'm here to say that there is a Left which has , and has had, no truck
> >> with
> >> postmodernism and its ilk.
>
> >> It isn't strong in university humanities departments, it's true.
>
> >> Ruth, a life long progressive (and materialist of sorts)
>
> > When I discovered as an old fashioned liberal that that meant I was a
> > 'typical representative of the white male patriarchy' and that I
> > didn't understand 'the Other' I decided that I was probably out of my
> > depth.
>
> There are people who will lay that trip on anyone who sits still for it, and
> then there are people who lay it on those who are unwilling to accept how
> advantaged they may be by accidents of birth.
There are (good) arguments on both sides. I concluded that some
people have a very strong need to blame someone else for the state of
things, and to take individuals as representative of their class/race/
gender etc.
I think one of the (more radical) things we have learned from
geneticists and biologists over the last 50 years is how much of our
success is determined by our genes.
>
> > One thing the Right has really taken on board from Foucault, Derrida
> > etc. is the use of language to dominate the argument. I am probably a
> > fan of George Orwell above all 20th century writers in particular that
> > brilliant essay on the political abuse of language.
>
> Well, yes.
>
> Me, I am clear that I do not believe bullshit. This seems to be a very
> powerful tool that propagates nicely :-)
Indeed. If one can figure out what is BS ;-). The trick as always
seems to be to appeal to the inner mind which says 'is this
reasonable? Does it align with what I know about the universe
already? and 'what would the implications be of believing this?'.
>
> > French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
> > debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
> > no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of
> > science').
>
> Lots of people do not and have never believed that, including sociologists.
Oh indeed. Dogmas which are often discredited within a profession,
have huge currency outside of it. In economics, there is much more
awareness of the limits of free markets (as a theory) than there is
outside of it*.
>
> It's derived from psych 'theory' long demonstrated as wrong, after all.
Do you have a good cite ie on the psychological critique of Post
Modernism?
>
> > However the fact that it has cut such a swathe suggests to me the
> > world was ready for it-- perhaps the old Left-Right dialectic left a
> > vaccuum to be filled.
>
> People will adopt fashionable ideas, especially if it gains them good
> grades, helps their career or gets them laid.
A good summary of the academic dynamic! Once a department or field
reaches a 'tipping point' no one who doesn't buy into the established
mode gets hired. It's also the truth that the left has been so
marginalised, in society as a whole, that it's easy for it to get
extremist in its thinking. You see similar trends on the far right.
>
> This 'readiness' is always available in my view.
Isn't that a post modern view itself? ;-) (big cheesy grin)
>
> Ruth
* the particular problem being you have to have perfect foresight,
full and complete knowledge and the ability to buy and sell everything
in the future as well as the present, to reach the optimal equilibrium
(Arrow Debreu equilibrium). Most markets don't have that. Labour and
industrial organisation economists, as well as students of
environmental economics and to some extent macroeconomics, all know
this.
Ruth Lawrence
<darkn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1171883498.9...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
Another thing we have learned is that genes interact, always, with
enviromnent, and that there may be an inherited tendency to confuse
phenotype with genotype...let alone social constructed stuff.
>> > One thing the Right has really taken on board from Foucault, Derrida
>> > etc. is the use of language to dominate the argument.
The left have been very thick witted to allow that at all.
I note that Dom/mes use this tactic (one hopes consensually), too.
>...I am probably a
>> > fan of George Orwell above all 20th century writers in particular that
>> > brilliant essay on the political abuse of language.
:::nods:::
>> Me, I am clear that I do not believe bullshit. This seems to be a very
>> powerful tool that propagates nicely :-)
>
> Indeed. If one can figure out what is BS ;-). The trick as always
> seems to be to appeal to the inner mind which says 'is this
> reasonable? Does it align with what I know about the universe
> already? and 'what would the implications be of believing this?'.
Good old reality-testing.
>> > French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
>> > debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
>> > no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of>
>>
>> > science').
>>
>> Lots of people do not and have never believed that, including
>> sociologists.
>
> Oh indeed. Dogmas which are often discredited within a profession,
> have huge currency outside of it. In economics, there is much more
> awareness of the limits of free markets (as a theory) than there is
> outside of it*.
To my mind a modern westerner who truly subscibes to the idea that there is
only social context, nothing else, is most of the way to kool-aid.
It's undoubtedly often an affectation.
>> It's derived from psych 'theory' long demonstrated as wrong, after all.
>
> Do you have a good cite ie on the psychological critique of Post
> Modernism?
Nope, not without googling, but here's a book of articles which have severe
things to say about Freud and his ideas:
Frederick Crews "Unauthorised Freud: Doubters Confront A Legend".
Since his theory underpins much postmoderrn nonsense, I feel it undercuts it
nicely.
The other convincing argument is the stubbed toe of material reality, to my
mind ;-)
>> People will adopt fashionable ideas, especially if it gains them good
>> grades, helps their career or gets them laid.
>
> A good summary of the academic dynamic!
Been there...
>...Once a department or field
> reaches a 'tipping point' no one who doesn't buy into the established
> mode gets hired. It's also the truth that the left has been so
> marginalised, in society as a whole, that it's easy for it to get
> extremist in its thinking. You see similar trends on the far right.
:::nods:::
>> This 'readiness' is always available in my view.
>
> Isn't that a post modern view itself? ;-) (big cheesy grin)
Hah :-)
Such behaviour has led to spankin's on occasion!
Nah, I think us peeps are a particualrly fancy kind of actual physical
critter, a kind that engages in some predictable social behaviour -including
sharing beliefs that will be the subject of derision and scorn by other
groups-.
> * the particular problem being you have to have perfect foresight,
> full and complete knowledge and the ability to buy and sell everything
> in the future as well as the present, to reach the optimal equilibrium
> (Arrow Debreu equilibrium). Most markets don't have that. Labour and
> industrial organisation economists, as well as students of
> environmental economics and to some extent macroeconomics, all know
> this.
I'm glad to hear it.
I still consider many economic theories to be based on a flawed image of
human existence...but I'm like that :-)
Ruth
darkn...@yahoo.com
>
> > I think one of the (more radical) things we have learned from
> > geneticists and biologists over the last 50 years is how much of our
> > success is determined by our genes.
>
> Another thing we have learned is that genes interact, always, with
> enviromnent, and that there may be an inherited tendency to confuse
> phenotype with genotype...let alone social constructed stuff.
>
> >> > One thing the Right has really taken on board from Foucault, Derrida
> >> > etc. is the use of language to dominate the argument.
>
> The left have been very thick witted to allow that at all.
Arrogant. Dogmatic. Condescending. All words that the political and
academic left have been guilty of.
As a (right wing humanities prof) friend of mine said when he left
academia, it was a delight to discover that there are people out there
who hate torture-- he had thought it was an academic affectation.
>
> I note that Dom/mes use this tactic (one hopes consensually), too.
>
> >...I am probably a
> >> > fan of George Orwell above all 20th century writers in particular that
> >> > brilliant essay on the political abuse of language.
>
> :::nods:::
>
> >> Me, I am clear that I do not believe bullshit. This seems to be a very
> >> powerful tool that propagates nicely :-)
>
> > Indeed. If one can figure out what is BS ;-). The trick as always
> > seems to be to appeal to the inner mind which says 'is this
> > reasonable? Does it align with what I know about the universe
> > already? and 'what would the implications be of believing this?'.
>
> Good old reality-testing.
or as Robin Williams put it memorably 'reality. What a concept.'
>
> >> > French post modernism has corrupted everything. You can see it in the
> >> > debate about global warming ('these aren't scientific facts, there are
> >> > no scientific facts, there is only the sociological context of>
>
> >> > science').
>
> >> Lots of people do not and have never believed that, including
> >> sociologists.
>
> > Oh indeed. Dogmas which are often discredited within a profession,
> > have huge currency outside of it. In economics, there is much more
> > awareness of the limits of free markets (as a theory) than there is
> > outside of it*.
>
> To my mind a modern westerner who truly subscibes to the idea that there is
> only social context, nothing else, is most of the way to kool-aid.
>
> It's undoubtedly often an affectation.
Psychology rules over philosophy. Dogmatists (of all stripes) have
dogmatic personalities. Posers have posey philosophies.
>
> >> It's derived from psych 'theory' long demonstrated as wrong, after all.
>
> > Do you have a good cite ie on the psychological critique of Post
> > Modernism?
>
> Nope, not without googling, but here's a book of articles which have severe
> things to say about Freud and his ideas:
>
> Frederick Crews "Unauthorised Freud: Doubters Confront A Legend".
>
> Since his theory underpins much postmoderrn nonsense, I feel it undercuts it
> nicely.
On I thought Freud was well and truly discarded. Teaches me not to
keep up.
('Darkness' is actually an alusion to Jung- -as in 'befriend your
shadow'. Not that I am a Jungian, but the image was so powerful it
really took me)
>
> The other convincing argument is the stubbed toe of material reality, to my
> mind ;-)
>
> >> People will adopt fashionable ideas, especially if it gains them good
>
> >> grades, helps their career or gets them laid.
>
> > A good summary of the academic dynamic!
>
> Been there...
>
> >...Once a department or field
> > reaches a 'tipping point' no one who doesn't buy into the established
> > mode gets hired. It's also the truth that the left has been so
> > marginalised, in society as a whole, that it's easy for it to get
> > extremist in its thinking. You see similar trends on the far right.
>
> :::nods:::
>
> >> This 'readiness' is always available in my view.
>
> > Isn't that a post modern view itself? ;-) (big cheesy grin)
>
> Hah :-)
>
> Such behaviour has led to spankin's on occasion!
>
> Nah, I think us peeps are a particualrly fancy kind of actual physical
> critter, a kind that engages in some predictable social behaviour -including
> sharing beliefs that will be the subject of derision and scorn by other
> groups-.
What I find fascinating in turn is the intolerance that *some* sub
groups display towards others, and how tolerance in a pervy-context is
*not* translated to tolerance in other aspects of life.
So there is group identification, in group, out group etc. But it
doesn't change who we are, psychologically, this pervie-dum (or
dom ;-).
>
> > * the particular problem being you have to have perfect foresight,
> > full and complete knowledge and the ability to buy and sell everything
> > in the future as well as the present, to reach the optimal equilibrium
> > (Arrow Debreu equilibrium). Most markets don't have that. Labour and
> > industrial organisation economists, as well as students of
> > environmental economics and to some extent macroeconomics, all know
> > this.
>
> I'm glad to hear it.
I'm getting really interested in Organization Theory (Charles Perrow:
'Normal Accidents' which is a whirlwind tour through Three Mile Island
etc.). The idea of the inherent contradictions of complex
organisations and activities.
This is a long way from the optimi optimorum of Arrow Debreu.
>
> I still consider many economic theories to be based on a flawed image of
> human existence...but I'm like that :-)
If not flawed, inadequate, ie missing the totality. But then, game
theorists have come a long way in understanding the power of
altruistic, cooperative and non competitive responses -- see Anatol
Rapaport etc.
It turns out altruism has a powerful impact on survival chances.
Don SideB
>It turns out altruism has a powerful impact on survival chances.
Then it isn't altruism.
Troia
> On 21 Feb 2007 02:51:52 -0800, darkn...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>> It turns out altruism has a powerful impact on survival chances.
>
> Then it isn't altruism.
That something has a certain outcome does not necessarily define its
motive or intent.
-- Troia
darkn...@yahoo.com
> On 21 Feb 2007 02:51:52 -0800, darknes...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> >It turns out altruism has a powerful impact on survival chances.
>
> Then it isn't altruism.
>
Don
You have just, neatly, demonstrated my point about conservatives and
post modernism.
I can hear the semiotic cackling in the background.... ;-).
Don SideB
Still want to nitpick irrelevant peripherals while ignoring the
central issue, I see.
In any case, I am not a conservative, I am a Libertarian.
Cthulhu in '08!
>
>That is that you don't get to pick and choose which liberties to
>preserve. You either work for all liberties or those precious to you
>will be lost.
>
>We are a sexual minority and most people are very uncomfortable with
>what we do.
>
All well and good, until you notice the sheep lining up for slaughter.
I've ranted the same soapbox endlessly. There's two classes of people:
those who want the government to protect them from everything, and
those with brains. The two are generally mutually exclusive, and
the sheep get very defensive when you point it out.
You're wasting your time, Don. I've yet to convince a single sheep
that they were dooming themselves. They just don't care, if it
affords a bit more security in the interim. Amusingly, they don't
seem to notice that we've killed ~400,000 people on the US roadways
in the last 10 years. I'm half afraid they'll outlaw car keys when
they finally figure it out.
You can't change human nature merely by telling them the truth.
Lusus Naturae
>There's two classes of people:
>those who want the government to protect them from everything, and
>those with brains. The two are generally mutually exclusive, and
>the sheep get very defensive when you point it out.
>
>You're wasting your time, Don. I've yet to convince a single sheep
>that they were dooming themselves
Amazing! You mean there are all those mindless sheep out there, and you
can't lead even one of them?! How interesting! Being the kind that
*does* have a mind, I'm sure you're interested in finding a reason for
this unexpected phenomenon. Whatever could it be?
Do you suppose the reason might be that they catch on -- that somehow,
despite having no minds, they become aware of this belief of yours that
anyone who doesn't see things the way you do is just a mindless sheep?
Could that be it -- that they are just a little bit smarter than you
give them credit for and don't really see condescension and
self-congratulation as the earmarks of someone who's opinion is worth
listening to?
--
Lusus Naturae
coyote
> Cthulhu in '08! <fli...@switch.org> wrote:
>
>> There's two classes of people:
>> those who want the government to protect them from everything, and
>> those with brains. The two are generally mutually exclusive, and
>> the sheep get very defensive when you point it out.
>>
>> You're wasting your time, Don. I've yet to convince a single sheep
>> that they were dooming themselves
>
> Amazing! You mean there are all those mindless sheep out there, and you
> can't lead even one of them?! How interesting! Being the kind that
> *does* have a mind, I'm sure you're interested in finding a reason for
> this unexpected phenomenon. Whatever could it be?
Waaaait. You mean *we* are the sheep? Why didn't anyone tell me? That
would certainly explain why the dog keeps trying to herd me.
--
~coyote
Brian Downstairs
spelled out in a constitution, we over here have never actually had one that
is part of law, so erosion is hard to quantify.
Brian
--
mildew...@blueyonder.co.uk
I hope I grow on you...
I'm a Fungi!!!
Blindness is a way of life.
"Lusus Naturae" <LususN...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:fqp3v2lc62a2e4ras...@4ax.com...
Don SideB
wrote:
>Don SideB <dons...@aol.com> tossed off:
>
>>
>>That is that you don't get to pick and choose which liberties to
>>preserve. You either work for all liberties or those precious to you
>>will be lost.
>>
>>We are a sexual minority and most people are very uncomfortable with
>>what we do.
>>
>
>All well and good, until you notice the sheep lining up for slaughter.
>
>I've ranted the same soapbox endlessly. There's two classes of people:
>those who want the government to protect them from everything, and
>those with brains. The two are generally mutually exclusive, and
>the sheep get very defensive when you point it out.
>
SNIP
>
>You can't change human nature merely by telling them the truth.
Well, then how else would you do it?
People here are not, for the most part, sheep. Most are intelligent
and independent enough to see the libertarian point of view and come
to see its logic.
But they are so focused on the immediate trials and passions of their
lives that they don't see the larger context of society's intrusion on
their lives.
So, I keep pointing out the importance of preserving Liberty in all
contexts and hope that in time people come to see that they cannot
preserve the Liberties most dear to them without standing up for the
Liberties of those people with whom they disagree.
All hail Discordia
<LususN...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Cthulhu in '08! <fli...@switch.org> wrote:
>
>>There's two classes of people:
>>those who want the government to protect them from everything, and
>>those with brains. The two are generally mutually exclusive, and
>>the sheep get very defensive when you point it out.
>>
>>You're wasting your time, Don. I've yet to convince a single sheep
>>that they were dooming themselves
>
>Amazing! You mean there are all those mindless sheep out there, and you
>can't lead even one of them?! How interesting! Being the kind that
>*does* have a mind, I'm sure you're interested in finding a reason for
>this unexpected phenomenon. Whatever could it be?
Pehaps its a case of leading the sheep to reason but being unable to
make them THINK.>
[snip]
--
Grant
Golden California Girls
They are thinking. Just the same way they have been indoctrinated for all their
life. "I'm a sheep I'm a sheep I'm a sheep ...."
Troia
Baaaaa! Humbug!
-- Troia
(someone had to say it)
fnordikins
>> They are thinking. Just the same way they have been indoctrinated for
>> all their life. "I'm a sheep I'm a sheep I'm a sheep ...."
>>
>
> Baaaaa! Humbug!
>
>
My little wolf in sheeps clothing...
Cthulhu in '08!
responsibility' versus 'government-insured security' always gets my dander up.
I'm either a Libertarian or a Jeffersonian (depending on my mood that day), so I
believe VERY strongly in freedom. Most governments don't want a free and
thinking people, as we cause 'em a lot of trouble. When anyone suggests giving
away *my* freedom, the 'intensity' knob gets twisted to 'full'.
It's an issue with very little common ground, and a lot of extremists; I'm one.
I don't believe our government could find it's butt with both hands in a bright
room WITH a map. Even less do I believe they can 'protect' me from anyone
hell-bent on destruction. They've proved it too many times, at all levels.
As an example, the ongoing restriction on fluids & gels on airplanes is due to
'intelligence' that a terrorist cell in England had access to military-grade
binary explosives. That was never proved as far as I'm aware, and it's moot.
Anyone with a decent education in chemistry could get a bomb onboard if they
were sufficiently inclined. It'd look like a statuette or something innocuous,
and 4 ounces of liquid or gel primary are more than enough to detonate a
castable secondary explosive. Our only saving grace is that most of the
terrorists are about as bright as rocks. All of the toys and procedures won't
protect you from an intelligent terrorist, and so far they haven't even stopped
the idiot ones. Thankfully you can't detonate C-4 with a Bic lighter!
Beliefs are very hard to change. Either you believe in yourself, or you believe
the Government can protect you. Make a choice and take a stand while you can...
I'll toddle on about my business, 'cos I sure as hell won't convince anyone of
the 'validity' of my beliefs.